 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Superior Shipyard and Fabrication11/8/2002
The issue raised in this appeal is whether insurance coverage is available under a business auto policy. The trial court found that there was no coverage, and for the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
This matter arises from an accident that occurred on August 11, 1998, on the premises of Superior Shipyard and Fabrication, Inc. (Superior) in Golden Meadow, Louisiana. A part-time maintenance employee for Superior, Alga Miller (Miller), was run over by a welding truck owned and operated by a sub-contractor employee, Chris Guidry (Guidry), who performed welding services exclusively for Superior's boat repair business. Guidry owned, operated and maintained his own welding equipment and vehicle. He provided liability insurance for his vehicle that he used while performing his welding services. Guidry was paid an hourly wage. Superior considered the wage to include payment for Guidry's labor as well as a fee for the use of his welding equipment. There was no written contract between Superior and Guidry outlining the terms of payment or employment.
Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) was brought into the litigation as the business auto insurer for Superior. Allstate denied coverage for the accident, contending that Guidry's vehicle was not an insured vehicle and that Guidry was not an insured under the Allstate policy issued to Superior. Allstate and plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issue. After a hearing, the trial court found that there was no coverage under the policy, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Allstate. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in determining the coverage issue.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INSURANCE POLICIES
An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Shelton v. Standard/700 Associates, 2001-0587, p. 5 (La. 10/16/01), 798 So.2d 60, 64-65. Interpretation of an insurance policy is usually a legal question that can be properly resolved by means of a motion for summary judgment. American Deposit Ins. Co. v. Myles, 2000-2457, p. 5 (La. 4/25/01), 783 So.2d 1282, 1286. However, summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage, under an insurance policy may not be rendered unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy under which coverage could be afforded when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion. Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480, p. 2 (La. 4111/94), 634 So.2d 1180, 1183.
The burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment is on the movant. LSAC.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). An insurer seeking to avoid coverage through summary judgment must prove that some exclusion applies to preclude coverage. Gaylord Chemical Corporation v. ProPump, Inc., 98-2367, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2118/00), 753 So.2d 349, 352. However, when determining whether a policy affords coverage for an incident, the insured bears the burden of proving the incident falls within the policy's terms. See Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 2000-0947, p. 5 (La. 12/19/00), 774 So.2d 119, 124, modified on other grounds on reh'g, 2000-0947 (La. 3/16/01), 782 So.2d 573.
DISCUSSION
In the instant case, Allstate has shown and plaintiffs do not dispute that Guidry's vehicle was not listed as a covered auto because it was not specifically described in the policy. It is also undisputed that Guidry was not listed as a named insured or insured driver in the policy issued to Superior. Thus, plaintiffs had th
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|